Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Jan-Peter Voigt wrote Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:58 PM So my question would be, is there a guide to the sources? Are there key principals in the architecture? If there is a chance to get into this next to my job, I would really like to give Lily somthing! Thanks for the offer! You will

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Jesús Guillermo Andrade writes: > El 12/11/2009, a las 02:17 p.m., David Kastrup escribió: >> And that's the main point: does the job. The one thing Emacs Lisp has >> going over Common Lisp that it is a reasonably limited language to >> learn >> in comparison. Which is a nuisance to seasoned Li

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Dear David: Thank you very much for your reply. If I was not that clear, please accept my apologies. I was not trying to seem pretentious or arrogant (far from it since I went into the thread as a newbie). My first language was COBOL, then Pascal, Perl and C. I barely have some notions of

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Tim McNamara writes: > On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > >> Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:41 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David >> Kastrup: >> >>> Carl Sorensen writes: >>> >> >> >>> _Addressing_ the actual problems is definitely more suitably done >>> on the >>> developer

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Sorry, I initially just sent this to Jan and meant to send it to the group. On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:41 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David Kastrup: Carl Sorensen writes: _Addressing_ the actual problems is definitely more sui

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Jesús Guillermo Andrade writes: > El 12/11/2009, a las 04:11 a.m., David Kastrup escribió: > > Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > > > As a new contributor/developer, by using a different, and a particular > > unfriendly platform for free software development, you are faced with > >

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hello there!... El 12/11/2009, a las 04:11 a.m., David Kastrup escribió: Continued on developer list. Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: As a new contributor/developer, by using a different, and a particular unfriendly platform for free software development, you are faced with tackling several diff

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hello Kieren, hello David, hello out there, I followed this conversation a little bit. Well I have been a quite good C++ coder, but that was about 10 years ago. Right now I am one of those million java developers. For my Job I had to turn to Java, wich I didn't really love. With Java5 it go

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> The best programmers are often programmers that are into programming >> for the sake of programming. Ask such a person for help with >> typesetting music, and Lilypond will be one of the points of >> attraction for him, and obstacles are disproving his g

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, The best programmers are often programmers that are into programming for the sake of programming. Ask such a person for help with typesetting music, and Lilypond will be one of the points of attraction for him, and obstacles are disproving his geek state (or the state of what he

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Possibly, but again irrelevant (or at least orthogonal) to the > discussion: I think that 100% of the new developer base will have > started as part of the user base, since it seems unlikely to the point > of impossibility that a random non-Lilypond-using developer > (L

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, It's not as bad as the numbers suggest. The ratio of serious developers who will balk at getting their development environment up and running will not be all that large. That may be true, but irrelevant to my point: the vast majority of the potential/actual "serious [new] develo

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:50:08PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > Put another way, the difficulty of setting up a > > development system on anything but Linux is a significant obstacle to > > Lilypond's potential. > > It would surprise me if you could find many developers that want > to v

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi Jan, Well, that's the question, isn't it? It depends on the percentage of users on each platform that are able and willing to contribute. Absolutely. It would surprise me if you could find many developers that want to volunteer their time working on free software, yet continue to do so u

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Jan, > >> I'm just pointing out that choosing something different will >> --currently still -- cost you. > > Absolutely... and, as we've witnessed, this is almost certainly > materially affecting the number of developers that can/will work on > Lilypond. > > Like it

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:36 uur [tijdzone -0500], schreef Kieren MacMillan: Hi Kieren, > Absolutely... and, as we've witnessed, this is almost certainly > materially affecting the number of developers that can/will work on > Lilypond. Of course. > Like it or not, >95% of the computer w

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi Jan, I'm just pointing out that choosing something different will --currently still -- cost you. Absolutely... and, as we've witnessed, this is almost certainly materially affecting the number of developers that can/will work on Lilypond. Like it or not, >95% of the computer world is

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On 11/11/09 4:23 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" wrote: >> >> spannerText = >> #(define-music-function (parser location span-text) >> (string?) >>   #{ >>       \override TextSpanner #'(bound-details >> left text) = #$span-text >>   #") >> >> which would allow above example to be coded much more >> ea

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 05:49 uur [tijdzone -0500], schreef Kieren MacMillan: Hi Kieren, > > There is nothing to learn. Have you seen a file? Adding plain > > text is more intuitive than using Apple's finder. Really. > > Well, since I don't even have a build system that works yet, this is

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi Jan, There is nothing to learn. Have you seen a file? Adding plain text is more intuitive than using Apple's finder. Really. Well, since I don't even have a build system that works yet, this is all totally moot at the moment... Chances are problems are fixed before you encounter the

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:41 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David > Kastrup: >> Carl Sorensen writes: > >> _Addressing_ the actual problems is definitely more suitably done on the >> developer list. > > So what are the actual problems? The actual problem is the pa

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Continued on developer list. Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > As a new contributor/developer, by using a different, and a particular > unfriendly platform for free software development, you are faced with > tackling several difficult problems at once. > > This is only meant as an observation and an

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Op donderdag 12-11-2009 om 08:41 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David Kastrup: > Carl Sorensen writes: > _Addressing_ the actual problems is definitely more suitably done on the > developer list. So what are the actual problems? Is LilyPond really too difficult? Do we rely too much on crufty inp

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Op woensdag 11-11-2009 om 17:47 uur [tijdzone -0500], schreef Kieren MacMillan: > I've got to learn yet another markup language There is nothing to learn. Have you seen a file? Adding plain text is more intuitive than using Apple's finder. Really. > and install a bunch of apps (still in prog

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Carl Sorensen writes: > David, > > I appreciate your persistence in this. I think that you are having part of > the difficulty in this conversation because it's on -user, not on -devel. > > The modifications to anything except input files (which use lilypond code > and embedded scheme) really in

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

David, I appreciate your persistence in this. I think that you are having part of the difficulty in this conversation because it's on -user, not on -devel. The modifications to anything except input files (which use lilypond code and embedded scheme) really involve knowledge that's primarily dis

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Nov 11, 2009, at 11:29 AM, David Kastrup wrote: For me, this situation is awkward, impeding and dissatisfactory. For others, it is reason to go away. I don't see that anything is gained for chastising me for my impression. That is merely shooting the messenger. Actually, more than the me

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 22:33 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Carl Sorensen writes: > > The code to establish a ritardando could be easily written, and may (or may > > not) be done as part of the forthcoming GLISS (Grand LilyPond Input Syntax > > Stabilization) project. There's currently some disagre

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Werner, What's the problem here? The problem is that I come to Lilypond with a skill set — specifically, many years of Java+Javascript+(X)HTML+XSL(T)+CSS+(La) TeX experience — which should be more than adequate for any modern documentation project involving a WWW component. I want to he

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:33 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> \spannerText "rit." >> b1\startTextSpan >> e,\stopTextSpan > > What is wrong with > b1\startSpan "rit." > e,\stopSpan > > ?  Why force meddling with an internal variable in the first place?  You > need the text anyway, why not make it part o

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

>> @node Alternate input > > I have to mao-ing learn TEXI now? What's the problem here? If you don't want to do nifty things it's just a quite simple markup language. And since there has already been written a lot of TEXI documentation for lilypond I'm quite sure that you find examples for almo

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Carl Sorensen writes: > David, > > Thanks for your willingness to articulate some concerns. I think that > your careful thinking can be of real help to the LilyPond community, > expecially if you can help us make things better. Thanks for putting up with me. > On 11/11/09 7:21 AM, "David Kastr

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:05:59PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> The first thing that comes to mind is Alternate input. >> Documentation/general/introduction.texi >> @node Alternate input > > I have to mao-ing learn TEXI now? > So much for your "2-5 hours" estimate... I stand by my "2-5 hours

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Graham, The first thing that comes to mind is Alternate input. Documentation/general/introduction.texi @node Alternate input I have to mao-ing learn TEXI now? So much for your "2-5 hours" estimate... Still-doing-it-but-thinking-there's-almost-definitely-a-better-way, Kieren. ___

Re: Quit

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:49:28PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > > > Also seen several times are people sending /lots/ of questions, > > be it users or developers, and after everything has been > > answered, the user quits or potential developers says she has no > > ti

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

David, Thanks for your willingness to articulate some concerns. I think that your careful thinking can be of real help to the LilyPond community, expecially if you can help us make things better. On 11/11/09 7:21 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > Kieren MacMillan writes: > >> Hi Craig (et al.),

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:53:11PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >> It does not tell you what language/classes/operations to use to >> implement what kind of task. > > OK, then submit a feature request — rant on -user does not count — and > maybe someone in the know will help out. No, please d

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Jonathan Kulp writes: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kieren MacMillan < > kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > Hi David (and anyone else who makes it here, wondering how to find the > "CG"), > > > > The manuals don't tell anything about "CG", where it is, what it does. >

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, Where does the GDP document the meaning of the acronym "GDP"? Here's one place (of many): It does not say what kind of code to put where for what reason.

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:19:37PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Graham, > >> - 2-5 hours of texinfo file editing > > I just pulled a new origin/master from git. > Today, I've got upwards of 3 hours to code: what do you want me to work > on? The first thing that comes to mind is Alternate i

Re: Quit

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Also seen several times are people sending /lots/ of questions, > be it users or developers, and after everything has been > answered, the user quits or potential developers says she has no > time or does not thing she is up for it after all. If the gist of the releva

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On 11/11/09 12:12 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:11:26PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> But if there is roadmap, design and vision, I have not yet been able to >> find it in the obvious places I have been looking for. > > The information for developers is the CG.

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > > [By the way, since it's apparently open season on posting style > criticism: your consistent lack of salutation and valediction in your > posts makes you seem rude, curt, and above all patronizing.] Perfectly accurate. >> "Reasonable" entails a collectiv

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi Graham, the "more available/obvious" choice would be to make the new website the main one. Currently, that's waiting on: - 2-5 hours of texinfo file editing I just pulled a new origin/master from git. Today, I've got upwards of 3 hours to code: what do you want me to work on? Cheers, K

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi David (and anyone else who makes it here, wondering how to find the > "CG"), > > > The manuals don't tell anything about "CG", where it is, what it does. >> http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/>

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:01:33PM -0500, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Step 3: Click on "Documentation for LilyPond 2.13 (latest development)" > [since you're going to be helping with development, this is the logical > choice]. > Location: >> Not the

Re: Quit

Op woensdag 11-11-2009 om 20:08 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef David Kastrup: > > As we both (all) know, there IS a "reasonable way to become an expert" > > at Lilypond > > No. A _reasonable_ way to become an expert is by reading into > increasingly more expert-level documentation and working wit

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:47:33PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > Graham Percival writes: > > > The information for developers is the CG. > > The manuals don't tell anything about "CG", where it is, what it does. > http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/> does not tell. There > is no dir

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David (and anyone else who makes it here, wondering how to find the "CG"), The manuals don't tell anything about "CG", where it is, what it does. http://lilypond.org/web/devel/participating/> does not tell. There is no directory of that name in the distribution. Step 1: Go to home page.

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Graham Percival writes: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:11:26PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> But if there is roadmap, design and vision, I have not yet been able >> to find it in the obvious places I have been looking for. > > The information for developers is the CG. The manuals don't tell an

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, [By the way, since it's apparently open season on posting style criticism: your consistent lack of salutation and valediction in your posts makes you seem rude, curt, and above all patronizing.] "Reasonable" entails a collective effort not to repeat avoidable work and frustratio

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:12:44PM +, Graham Percival wrote: > Other than kidnap + torture, of course. I might vote for this, > but it strikes me that it might cause long-term problems... Addendum: I don't know the details that you want, so torturing me won't help. I'd *like* to know those d

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:11:26PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > Kieren MacMillan writes: > > > I couldn't agree more! [See Steps 1&2, above.] > > I think that sums up very well why somebody would prefer not working > with Lilypond. Not only do you have to rely on expert advice, but the > ma

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Sorry for the post in triplicate. Gmane's response time confused me. Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> I think that sums up very well why somebody would prefer not working >> with Lilypond. Not only do you have to rely on expert advice, but the >> main advice is "please do what an exp

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, I think that sums up very well why somebody would prefer not working with Lilypond. Not only do you have to rely on expert advice, but the main advice is "please do what an expert would do, or shut up". Please show me where I said anything resembling "shut up"...? I'm sorry if you i

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

> I'm not topposting Third attempt because of topposting automoderation -- this _is_ a nuisance. Kieren MacMillan writes: [...] I don't see the "now definitely O/T" you put in the subject line. The subject was that somebody quit, and we are talking about the reasons. [...] >> It is too che

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: [...] I don't see the "now definitely O/T" you put in the subject line. The subject was that somebody quit, and we are talking about the reasons. [...] >> It is too cheap to put this down to "faster". The problem is not >> that you need longer to do some things with

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

I don't see the "now definitely O/T" you put in the subject line. The subject was that somebody quit, and we are talking about the reasons. Kieren MacMillan writes: >> It is too cheap to put this down to "faster". The problem is not >> that you need longer to do some things with Lilypond init

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi David, It is too cheap to put this down to "faster". The problem is not that you need longer to do some things with Lilypond initially. The problem is that there is a large number of things for which there is no proper way to do them at all, and you have to take out the crowbar. As is

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Craig (et al.), > >> I must say that the "faster" thing is a typical United States >> behavior. > > Whether or not it started in the USA, it's a worldwide phenomenon now. > =) > [Disclosure: I'm Canadian.] It is too cheap to put this down to "faster". The problem i

Re: quit

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Appeldoorn wrote: [...] > > On the plus I found, good looking scores, very flexible > On the minus I found, very tedious, time-consuming and heavily relying on > work-arounds. > > Hope this will give some inside. I won't say I'll never try again, but not > jus

Re: Quit [now definitely O/T]

Hi Craig (et al.), I must say that the "faster" thing is a typical United States behavior. Whether or not it started in the USA, it's a worldwide phenomenon now. =) [Disclosure: I'm Canadian.] Our markets and media constantly barrage us with "time" issues. I think maybe "convenience"

Re: Quit

On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 00:44 -0500, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote: > Also, the complaint here isn't that there's some inherent defect in > the program or the documentation, rather that you didn't want to > take > the time to learn how to use lilypond when you could do it in > sibelius fa

Re: quit

On 11.11.2009, at 01:01, Erik Appeldoorn wrote: As several users have responded asking for feedback why I stopped with lilypond (or criticism). Here's my 2cents worth. During the last four weeks I have been restoring a piece. It has come to me in several different parts. Handwriting, several

RE: quit

de. I won't say I'll never try again, but not just now. Hou je goed / Keep well, Erik > -Original Message- > From: Patrick McCarty [mailto:pnor...@gmail.com] > Sent: woensdag 11 november 2009 0:39 > To: Erik Appeldoorn > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject

Re: quit

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Erik Appeldoorn wrote: > I’ve been around for a short while only. A month with lilypond and 3 weeks > on the list. Made a couple of scores, quite complex ones. But for each and > every one I had to fiddle for hours and hours trying to grab all the > details. All t

RE: quit

Seems like a month is too short a time before giving up. I really have no other experience with other software like Finale or Sibelius, so I can't say anythign about them, but I have been very pleased with what I can do with LP. But it did take about 6 months before I was really getting it (n

Re: quit

Sibelius is a really great software. It is not free, can't be run from a wiki, but great, it even handles collisions pretty well. Still I think it is worth spending time with LilyPond, it took me far more than 1 month on the list, so congratulations, that you could create complex scores after th

Re: quit

On 10.11.2009, at 20:36, Erik Appeldoorn wrote: I’ve been around for a short while only. A month with lilypond and 3 weeks on the list. Made a couple of scores, quite complex ones. But for each and every one I had to fiddle for hours and hours trying to grab all the details. All the while